This disclosure relates to electronic messaging systems. More specifically, the disclosure relates to improving existing messaging systems in a networked environment in order to re-associate certain data parameters to a party that is different from a default party.
As a matter of background, electronic messaging networks use a variety of different message types for various purposes. Different message types may be assigned message identifiers to distinguish them from each other. Messages exchanged over electronic financial messaging networks may use a messaging standard. During normal processing, message identifiers can be used as a signifier of the message content. For example, the ISO 8583 messaging protocol uses message type indicators (MTIs) to designate different message types and reference the content or purpose of the message. During a financial transaction, messages are exchanged between a variety of computing devices. A financial transaction message includes data such as data regarding a party that has liability for the transaction (e.g., for loss of the money or credit exchanged, or for loss or damage to the goods or services purchased).
The risks involved in online transactions often differ in important ways from those involved in merchant location transactions. Goods purchased online are delivered (e.g., by a postal or delivery service) to a destination of the accountholder's choosing. This destination may be, for example, the accountholder's residence or place of work. The destination may not be a secure location. The accountholder may not be continuously present at the destination and/or others may be present. The delivered goods may be misplaced, mishandled, or stolen. Additionally, an unauthorized user may use the accountholder's account data to initiate a transaction and get the goods delivered to the unauthorized user's preferred destination.
Some known systems are limited in that they are unable to use electronic messaging to verify that a delivery recipient was authorized. Additionally, some known systems address fraud issues in chargeback transactions by generating authentication values prior to the authorization for the transaction. In such systems, the authentication value needs to be generated before authorization, sent by the merchant, approved by the issuer, and only then will liability shift from the merchant to the issuer. Such systems are costly to implement and are unable to leverage existing infrastructure.